Let's face it: Mike Bloomberg can beat Trump

AVENTURA, FLORIDA - JANUARY 26: Democratic presidential candidate former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks during a United for Mike, event held at the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center and Tauber Academy Social Hall on January 26, 2020 in Aventura, Florida. The event is part of a nationwide outreach effort to rally support among Jewish Americans across the country in support of Mikes commitment to rebuild America and defeat President Donald Trump. Joe Raedle/Getty Images/AFP

 

I've heard that the wind's at Trump's back.

And that now he will counterattack.

He'll resort to his cheatin'

But he still can be beaten

If Mike Bloomberg at him gets a crack.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • That's an interesting theory,
    but of billionaires I'm leery!

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    I didn't come up with your rhyme, but it is starting to bug me that only plutocrats seem in play. For instance, while I'm no fan of Kim Foxx, it bothers me that one of her opponents thinks his father can buy the race.

    The sweetened beverage tax shows that Bloomberg can be vulnerable. He also somehow got term limits overturned in NYC, something Giuliani, while still sane, would not do in 2001. Hence, while it is still "any responsible person," he isn't my first choice. His service, at this point, is keeping black and white pictures of the Orange Troll in the advertising forefront.

    It also demonstrates that the Legion of the Troll may have extorted Ukraine for dirt on a candidate who wasn't viable in the first place.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    After Citizens United we will have to become used to billionaires buying high office. After all, the two most recent Illinois governors have been billionaires and, as Jack points out, the Cook County State's Attorney office is on the market. If Bloomberg wins the presidency we will at least have a certified billionaire leading us. Some have questioned the status of Donald No-Tax-Returns Trump.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It doesn't appear that Citizens United directly had this effect. The holding was directly on whether a corporation could make contributions (in that case in kind) or had to use the method prescribed by statute of using a PAC.

    The federal source is 11 CFR 110.10, which is merely interpretative, but seems an inference from 52 USC 30116, 30117, which regulate contributions, not expenditures, and provide for increased limits if an opposition candidate uses personal funds. A similar view was followed in Illinois in anticipation of Rauner, that if the opponent used funds in excess of the limit, the limit no longer applied.

  • In reply to jack:

    You are correct. The case directly permitting billionaires to buy their offices was Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Citizens United merely made it easier to enlist their own and other corporations in financing them.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Yep.

  • In reply to jack:

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

  • In reply to jack:

    It comes as no surprised that the New York Times is reporting that Michael Bloomberg "has deployed his corporation in service of his campaign, reassigning employees from the various arms of his empire and recruiting new ones with powerful financial incentives, including full benefits and salaries well above national campaign norms."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Well, thanks, jnorto, but I'm still leery. The two most recent Illinois governors (counting the present one) are billionaires... and how's that working out?

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    At least they aren't attempting to extort a Racetrack Executive or Children's Memorial Hospital, among others.But, based on what the U.S. Senate just decided, the last thousandaire governor didn't do anything wrong.

Leave a comment